Police allowed to install cameras on private property without warrant

[AsahinaKimi]

Court: Fourth Amendment allows 24/7 camera surveillance of "open fields."

by Timothy B. Lee - Oct 30 2012, 4:46pm PDT


A federal judge has ruled that police officers in Wisconsin did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they secretly installed cameras on private property without judicial approval.

The officers installed the cameras in an open field where they suspected the defendants, Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana, were growing marijuana. The police eventually obtained a search warrant, but not until after some potentially incriminating images were captured by the cameras. The defendants have asked the judge to suppress all images collected prior to the issuance of the search warrant.

But in a Monday decision first reported by CNET, Judge William Griesbach rejected the request. Instead, he approved the ruling of a magistrate judge that the Fourth Amendment only protected the home and land directly outside of it (known as "curtilage&quot , not open fields far from any residence.

The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The court ruled that under applicable Supreme Court precedents, "open fields, as distinguished from curtilage, are not 'effects' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/police-allowed-to-install-cameras-on-private-property-without-warrant/

[villager]

1. Gosh, be a shame if anything happened to that unguarded police equipment on private property

n/t

[msongs]

2. the police state tightens its net on us, murdering us by drones will follow nt

[JimDandy]

3. Whittle, whittle, whittle.

All the farmers, ranchers, celebrities, millionaires, and corporations will just love that ruling.

Never-the-less, it was private property so the police were TRESPASSING. Sue em.

[Scootaloo]

4. Did the court just rule that land is not property?

The court ruled that under applicable Supreme Court precedents, "open fields, as distinguished from curtilage, are not 'effects' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

Sure looks that way.

[The Doctor.]

5. It's an interesting interpretation.

I'd pursue trespassing charges against the PD. The surveillance may be legal, but their trespassing was not.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

6. Good point.